t/Space CCDEV2 Concept

[HMXHMX]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I Have to second that opinion.

What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit.  I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?

Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.

Yeah, just call me a dreamer!

During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone.  So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.

What are your plans now?

Anything that doesn't involve submission of a proposal for NASA or USAF.

Your proposal would have had the ability to launch up to 8 crew at once.  Do you see a market for up to 8 crew being launches at one time--govt. or civilian?

Depends on the price point per seat.  I don't see the market for gov't missions, but thought there was one for private crew, provided the price was right.

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

[Robotbeat]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Or first-orbit rendezvous?

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Or first-orbit rendezvous?

Yes, that's an alternative.  But recall this topic is about the bid for CCDEV2.  NASA won't support a first orbit rendezvous for ISS.  That's why I didn't propose it.

[oiorionsbelt]

Not sure  whether to ask this here or in the stratolaunch thread, but does anyone know what happened with the t/Space t/Lanyard system?
Would it work with a booster of the size envisioned for the Stratolaunch?

[HMXHMX]

Not sure  whether to ask this here or in the stratolaunch thread, but does anyone know what happened with the t/Space t/Lanyard system?
Would it work with a booster of the size envisioned for the Stratolaunch?

It's patented.  7,458,544  Issued in 2008.

It would work well for Stratolaunch-sized loads; we have analyzed this for another program.  It avoids the need for wings that create the 2G launch vehicle pull-up sideloads, and means the carrier aircraft can carry as much as 1/4 more launch mass, since it doesn't have to perform the a/c pull up either.

[oiorionsbelt]

Thanks for the authoritative reply. It will be interesting to see if it's used by Stratolaunch.

[Downix]

Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads

Despite some in the US's viewpoint that racing begins and ends with NASCAR, Formula 1 is a bigger sport, and would be far more open to such a proposition.

[krytek]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

[RocketmanUS]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

[HMXHMX]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

[RocketmanUS]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

On the second picture what is that attached to the bottom of the CXV?

[krytek]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

Maybe you should consider trying to market the seats to some of the CCDEV contenders. I mean there's probably enough mass savings for a whole extra person (even if they're not mass limited). And as you say, it's a big plus you can store them away when on orbit.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

Whay have no other crewed companies gone the way of the "hammock"  If it works--it would save weight and possibly allow an another person in the capsule.

[HMXHMX]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

On the second picture what is that attached to the bottom of the CXV?

Berthing/docking systems and cargo storage.

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

Whay have no other crewed companies gone the way of the "hammock"  If it works--it would save weight and possibly allow an another person in the capsule.

Our seats were designed to solve a unique problem; other firms don't have the same issue to resolve. 

[RocketmanUS]

About the 2005 CXV second picture posted above

 Quote from HMXHMX
 a Berthing/docking systems and cargo storage.

I see how that would be good.

So could that part on it's sides had tanks and engines for a pusher escape system so not in the way of the solar panels or the access hatch for the crew on one side? If not used the fuel for on orbit use.

What was the estimated mass of that added part to the CXV?

Quote from HMXHMX
Our seats were designed to solve a unique problem; other firms don't have the same issue to resolve.

Was that to have the crew in the right direction during and part of the flight ascent or descent?

[HMXHMX]

About the 2005 CXV second picture posted above

 Quote from HMXHMX
 a Berthing/docking systems and cargo storage.

I see how that would be good.

So could that part on it's sides had tanks and engines for a pusher escape system so not in the way of the solar panels or the access hatch for the crew on one side? If not used the fuel for on orbit use.

What was the estimated mass of that added part to the CXV?

Quote from HMXHMX
Our seats were designed to solve a unique problem; other firms don't have the same issue to resolve.

Was that to have the crew in the right direction during and part of the flight ascent or descent?

Yes, regarding the seats, as it relates to abort and normal ascent.  I don't have the weight information.

[RocketmanUS]

Do you know if or when t/Space's web page will open up out of under construction?
web page: http://www.transformspace.com/Welcome.html